From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Sep 10 2007 - 07:54:45 EDT
> But I *must* offer a small whimper at a comment in a post by Anders, > which refers to the "whole Bortkiewicz-Laibman tradition." Hi David: While Anders is not himself an advocate of the TSSI, this type of conflation has a long tradition within TSSI writings. This unfortunate characterization is simply another consequence of the "us v them" claims made by TSSI advocates. Thus, they refer to a so-called "standard interpretation" in which your position along with a host of others who aren't supporters of the TSSI are lumped together. Kliman has sometimes (mis-)grouped your perspective (and the perspective of just about everyone else outside of the TSSI small circle of friends) as being part of a "Borkiewiczian interpretation". (I there anybody in the world who has actually referred to his or her perspective as "Bortkiewiczian"?). This lumping together of critics of the TSSI is all part of the pretentious claim of Kliman-Freeman that the TSSI represents an allegedly "Copernican" advance in theory. The "Bortkiewiczians" (those with the so-called "standard interpretation") are the alleged flat-Earthers like yourself whose real unstanted aim is to "suppress Marx" and "Marx's Marxism". A corrolary in the TSSI diatribe is that critics, yourself included, represent "anti-pluralism within radical economics" (Kliman). The reasoning is profound: since they claim the TSSI represents a Copernican advance in thought and since critics don't accept the TSSI that must make the critics "anti-pluralists" who seek to "suppress Marx" (for whom they purportedly speak). Note the implicit assertion (since they emphasize that TSS is TSSI, i.e. an interpretation of Marx) that it is possible to have a "Copernican revolution" in a hermeneutic subject. Some "Copernican revolution" that is! Is it any wonder that a lot of Marxians no longer take their claims seriously? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT